By Our Correspondent
BHUBANESWAR: Elon Musk’s public criticism and pressure on India’s regulatory process have limited justification when three applicants are at the same stage, and a sovereign country is entitled to set and enforce its own rules rather than accelerate on any one company’s timeline or preferred narrative.
Three companies—Starlink (SpaceX), Jio Satellite Communications (Reliance), and Eutelsat OneWeb (Bharti-backed)—hold GMPCS licences and are undergoing the same remaining steps: security assessments (primarily Ministry of Home Affairs, covering data localisation, lawful interception, Indian gateways, etc.) and subsequent spectrum assignment. The Indian government has stated repeatedly that the framework is “fair and non-discriminatory,” that all three are at “broadly the same regulatory stage,” and that claims of preferential treatment or oligarch-driven blocking are “baseless and misconceived.” Starlink has invested in ground infrastructure and says it has tailored operations for Indian security rules (including keeping user data in India). Delays are real—Starlink has been pursuing entry for years—but they apply across the board, not uniquely to Musk’s company. Spectrum policy (administrative allocation rather than pure auction) was already settled in a way that aligned more with Starlink’s preferences after earlier lobbying battles.
Public advocacy and criticism are normal for large companies facing multi-year regulatory delays in major markets. Starlink operates in 165+ countries; highlighting rural connectivity gaps and the benefits of competition is legitimate commercial advocacy.
Competition can benefit consumers. India’s terrestrial market is heavily concentrated (Jio + Airtel dominate), and satellite broadband could help underserved areas even if terrestrial 4G coverage is already extensive in most villages.
Musk has used similar public pressure elsewhere (South Africa ownership rules, EU spectrum/digital regulations, Brazil content disputes, etc.). Companies routinely lobby, litigate, or criticise foreign rules that affect them.
India is not required to run “as per the wish of Elon Musk.” Every sovereign country sets its own licensing, security, spectrum, and foreign-investment rules for critical infrastructure such as satellite communications. Security clearances involving potential foreign control of networks, data flows, and emergency access are legitimate national priorities, especially given Starlink’s ties to the US government and past operational decisions (e.g., coverage adjustments in conflict zones). India has the right to be cautious and thorough.
Treating three applicants equally undermines the “oligarchs blocking only Starlink” claim. If the process is slow for everyone, the bottleneck is the government’s security and spectrum framework, not proven private interference that singles out one player.
Escalating to “crime against the people of India,” “Is Ambani the real boss of India?,” and “Dear Prime Minister Ambani” shifts from commercial advocacy into political rhetoric that questions the independence of India’s elected government and institutions. This is more interference in domestic politics than standard regulatory engagement. It risks alienating the very authorities whose approval is needed.
Musk’s companies themselves benefit from government support, contracts, and regulatory decisions in the US and elsewhere. Expecting other countries to prioritise speed or ease for a foreign private operator while defending strict rules at home creates an inconsistency.
Musk frequently uses X and public statements to challenge foreign regulations he views as protectionist, discriminatory, or inefficient (EU DSA fines and spectrum proposals, South African BEE ownership rules, Brazilian court orders, etc.). Sometimes this yields results or draws attention to real issues; sometimes it is seen as overreach or an attempt to leverage personal/US influence.
In India’s case, the equal treatment of the three licensees and the government’s transparent defence of its process make the “interference to force faster approval on Musk’s terms” particularly hard to justify.
Public criticism of delays and calls for competition are fair game for any business. Demanding that a foreign democracy subordinate its security-driven, multi-applicant regulatory process to one company’s preferred speed or framing is not. India can and should proceed according to its own rules, timelines, and national interests—exactly as the US or any other country would. The three applicants waiting together reinforces that this is process, not personal favouritism toward or against Musk.
